> It's their private property, they can ban or promote any ideas that they want to. You're free to not use their property if you disagree with that.

1) They are public corporations and are legal creation of the state and benefit from certain protections of the state. They also have privileged access to some public infrastructures that other private companies do not have.

2) By acting on the behest of the government they were agent of the government for free speech and censorship purposes

3) Being monopolies in their respective markets, this means they must respect certain obligations the same way public utilities have.

▲

hash872 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Re: 1- one certain protection of the state that they benefit from is the US Constitution, which as interpreted so far forbids the government to impair their free speech rights. Making a private actor host content they personally disagree with violates their right of free speech! That's what the 1st Amendment is all about

2. This has already been adjudicated and this argument lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri

3. What market is Youtube a monopoly in?

	▲	themaninthedark 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		2. This has already been adjudicated and this argument lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri The 6–3 majority determined that neither the states nor other respondents had standing under Article III, reversing the Fifth Circuit decision. In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, stating: "To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction." The Supreme Court did not say that what was done was legal, they only said that the people who were asking for the injunction and bringing the lawsuit could not show how they were being or going to be hurt.